Source: The Heritage Foundation | VIEW ORIGINAL POST ==>
Groundhog Day is still a week away, but you wouldn’t know it from the likes of the Charleston Post and Courier. Like the film in which Bill Murray lives the same day over and over again, the editors there are rehashing tired—and disproven—claims against the benefits of parent choice in education.
This recurring trope arrives just in time for National School Choice Week, which offers an opportunity to set the record straight. Again.
The Post and Courier’s latest attack on education choice is in response to a new proposal from South Carolina lawmakers to offer education savings accounts to state children.
This proposal comes after a state supreme court decision last year that struck down an education savings account program due to claims the accounts used state funds to support private vendors in violation of South Carolina’s constitution.
As the Institute for Justice explains, education choice policies like these are protected by the U.S. Constitution. Even if that weren’t the case, though, the similarities between South Carolina’s accounts and those in Arizona and elsewhere were enough for parents and policymakers to see the court had whiffed on its swing against the accounts.
The decision denied hundreds of students the chance to find education opportunities apart from assigned schools. The ruling left parents like David Warner, who I interviewed last year, feeling as though “the light has gone out” and his family might “be… left in the dark again.”
Now, state lawmakers are attempting to help students who had their options taken from them by enacting a new program that will serve even more children.
But the editors of the Post and Courier denounce the program, saying “school vouchers are bad enough” because they lack “accountability,” impose additional taxpayer burdens, and disproportionately benefit the rich.
This argument echoes the views of special interest groups who claim parent choice options do not have enough accountability. Yet this ignores provisions in the new proposal that would disburse account funds quarterly. Policymakers will have the opportunity to determine if misspending has occurred and suspend accounts if needed.
Education savings accounts in other states operate similarly. As the Goldwater Institute has tirelessly explained, no amount of misspending is appropriate, but the amount of funds used for ineligible expenses is trivial compared to the total sum of disbursements. This stands in stark contrast to traditional schools, where officials are not held to the same standard and incidents of misspending often continue for years.
The Post and Courier is also wrong in its claims that education choice programs increase taxpayer spending.
Education savings account spending per child is often significantly lower than spending in assigned schools. For example, South Carolina lawmakers are proposing $8,500 for each account—slightly more than half the $14,500 spent per child in traditional public schools. Goldwater has reported similar savings figures for Arizona and in other states with account options.
Nor are claims that education choice options only help the rich any better founded. According to Goldwater’s own Matt Beienburg, Arizona ESA account holders come from all across the income spectrum, just like their public school peers. In my research in North Carolina, I found that half of account holders there live in neighborhoods where the median household income is within $10,000 of the statewide median.
The Post and Courier’s arguments—no accountability, more taxpayer spending, and benefits for the rich—are simply a rerun of teachers’ union and other special interest group talking points.
The National Education Association (NEA) says vouchers “steal scarce funding from public schools,” even though taxpayer spending on traditional schools has increased largely unabated for decades and currently stands at more than $16,300 per student.
Unions also claim private school scholarships discriminate against children with special needs. However, the account programs in Arizona and Florida (which have two of the largest account systems in the U.S.) began as options designed exclusively for children with unique needs.
Recycling union position statements against “vouchers” when education choice has moved on to fully customizable options is not serious opposition. With outdated arguments out of the way, the Post and Courier and others can finally consider why National School Choice Week celebrates the research and experiences demonstrating that choice is essential for student success in school and in life.
